- From: Ian S. Graham <igraham@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>
- Date: Thu, 21 Dec 95 16:08:31 EST
- To: william@cs.columbia.edu (William C. Cheng)
- Cc: www-html@w3.org
> >
Bill Cheng wrote:
>
> It seems to be true that "/../" is not forbidden explicitely. Now,
> can anyone give me an example where http://foo/b/../bar.html and
> http://foo/bar.html should _not_ be interpreted the same way? Forget
> .....
> Bill Cheng // Guest at Columbia Unversity Computer Science Department
> william@CS.COLUMBIA.EDU ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.columbia.edu!william
> WWW Home Page: <URL:http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~william>
This will fail if foo/b/ is a symbolic link to another directory. In
this case, the ../ is ill-defined -- should you go back to foo, or back
to the parent of the object linked to by "b". This is of course not
just a unix issue, as Bill points out.
Ian
--
Ian Graham ................................. igraham@hprc.utoronto.ca
Information Commons
University of Toronto
Received on Thursday, 21 December 1995 16:10:19 UTC